Interactive Learning Environments
2001, Vol. 00, No. 0, pp. 000±000
1049-4820/01/0000-000$15.00
# Swets & Zeitlinger
Web-based Cases in Teaching and Learning ± the Quality
of Discussions and a Stage of Perspective Taking
in Asynchronous Communication
Sanna JaÈrvelaÈ and PaÈivi HaÈkkinen
Department of Educational Sciences and Teacher Education, University of Oulu, Finland, and
Institute for Educational Research, University of JyvaÈskylaÈ, JyvaÈskylaÈ, Finland
ABSTRACT
The aim of this study is to examine the quality of asynchronous interaction in web-based
conferencing among pre-service teachers. Because all successful communication presumes
perspective-taking skills and reciprocal understanding among the participants, we study whether
the students are able to reach in reciprocal interaction and thus create educationally relevant
high-level web-based discussion. The research project has its foundation in socio-constructivist
learning theories, one of the most important principles of which is the idea of apprenticeship in
thinking. To create a learning project in web-based conferencing we developed pedagogical
practices, which enhance higher-level networked communication and make use of theoretical
and expert knowledge. The study combines the power of asynchronous conferencing with peer
and mentor collaboration to electronically apprentice student learning. The subjects of the study
are pre-service teachers in the United States (N ˆ 40) and Finland (N ˆ 30) who use an
asynchronous web-based tool called Conferencing on the Web (COW) to collaborate in creating
joint case-based descriptions in different areas of teaching and learning. The results point out
different levels of web-based discussion. Three kinds were found: higher-level discussion,
progressive discussion and lower-level discussion. More speci®c analysis of the quality of each
discussion level focused on perspective taking in communication. The results support our
hypothesis that higher-level perspective taking was related to higher-level discussion.
INTRODUCTION
Today, communication technologies make possible various kinds of mediated
communication, which increasingly has become part of instructional and
Correspondence: Sanna JaÈrvelaÈ, Department of Educational Sciences and Teacher Education,
P.O. Box 2000, 20014 University of Oulu, Finland. Tel.: ‡ 358 8 5533657, Fax: ‡ 358 8
5533744, E-mail: [email protected].®
ILE-014
2
È RVELA
È AND P. HA
È KKINEN
S. JA
educational communication. Various web-based learning environments have
been developed for educational purposes, and different web-courses have been
applied especially to higher education and continuing education courses.
Global networks and the use of computers for intellectual communication will
further enhance and expand how humans connect, communicate, and create a
sense of community (Bonk & King, 1998; Brown & Campione, 1996;
Harasim, 1993). Learners can access virtual classrooms, on-line collaborative
groups, learning circles, peer networks, and on-line libraries in a shared space.
Students in a global network engage in collaborative learning projects with
peers from other regions and countries, sharing their ideas and resources,
accessing information in current events and archives, and interacting with
experts (Riel, 1993).
There is growing documentation regarding the differences in communication patterns, teacher roles, and student performances when using web-based
learning environments in college or higher education settings (Khan, 1997).
After reviewing a variety of recent studies, there seems to be a general
assumption that web-based interaction is educationally valuable. At the same
time most research on the use of web-based communication tools in higher
education still lacks theoretical grounding in contemporary learning theory
(Koschmann, 1994). Too often, research on technologies for learning emphasizes things like tool features, attractive intercultural designs and technological procedures.
More depth and quality in the electronically networked communication is
called for. Studies report how networked interaction in many learning
projects results in super®cial and experience-based discussion, but does
not reach the level of theory-based re¯ections and argumentation. Yet,
theory-based discussions and expert knowledge are crucial for high quality
knowledge construction and learning (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993). We
claim that there is a need to examine and design such a model for networked
educational communication, which would require and allow for a higherlevel discussion and argumentation. Challenged by this, we developed a
pedagogical model for web-based learning and applied it to teacher-education. The model combines asynchronous conferencing with case-based
reasoning and peer and mentor collaboration to support apprentice student
learning by electronic means. The special aim was to analyze the quality of
communication: Are the students able to reach such an interaction which
leads them to educationally relevant higher-level web-based asynchronous
discussion?
WEB-BASED CASES IN TEACHING AND LEARNING
3
WEB-BASED ENVIRONMENTS FOR EDUCATIONAL
COMMUNICATION
Asynchronous interaction without immediate social interaction has many
challenges to overcome since communicating parties are faced continuously
with the task of constructing their common cognitive environment. The
difference between talking face-to-face and talking by such remote means
as the telephone has been documented in different studies (Sproull & Kiesler,
1986). A great deal of information conveyed by face-to-face interaction is
derived from such things as tone of voice, facial expressions and appearance.
The absence of visual information (e.g., missing facial expressions and
nonverbal cues) reduces the richness of the social cues available to the
participants, increasing the social distance. Studies in e-mail environments
suggest differences in comparison with print forms of communication: less
structured, less constrained by social conventions, and more spontaneous
(Kiesler, Siegel, & McGuire, 1984). There are suggestions that the discussions
of subjects in web-based environments are more task-oriented and contain less
personal content than in immediate social interaction (Krauss & Fussell,
1990).
Considerable successful results have been received in experiments in
Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL). It is one of the recent
ideas to create powerful learning and communication environments in
combination with collaborative learning ideas and networked technology.
Many advanced technical infrastructure for fostering higher-level processes
of inquiry-based interaction have been developed (Barron et al., 1998;
Edelson, Pea, & Gomez, 1996; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1993). Recent studies
have revealed that in connection with corresponding pedagogical practices
CSCL±environments (such as CSILE, created by Scardamalia & Bereiter)
facilitate higher-level cognitive achievements at school (Hakkarainen,
Lipponen, & JaÈrvelaÈ, 1999; JaÈrvelaÈ, Niemivirta, & Hakkarainen, 1999;
Scardamalia, Bereiter, & Lamon 1994). A possible explanation for succeesful
results is an advanced technological infrastructure for engaging students in a
process of generating their own research questions, setting up and improving
their intuitive theories and searching scienti®c information as well as sharing
their cognitive achievements.
In spite of successful instructional design work among cognitive learning
theorists, growing evidence still demonstrates that communication in webbased learning environments does not usually facilitate theory-based re¯ec-
4
È RVELA
È AND P. HA
È KKINEN
S. JA
tions, mostly experience- and feeling-based argumentation. Admiraal, Lockhorst, Wubbels, Korthagen and Veen (1998) used computer conferencing with
student teachers and their supervisors in the study that focused on the
participants' assessment of computer conferencing, their participation and
activities, and educational outcomes. They found that during their ®eld
experiences, student teachers used computer conferencing primarily to
exchange emotional support recognizing similar experiences of their peers.
According to the ®ndings, it was less used for re¯ecting on their teaching and
exchanging pedagogical content knowledge.
In his many studies on web-based conferencing in teacher education, Bonk
and coworkers (Bonk, Hansen, Grabner, Lazar, & Mirabelli, 1998; Bonk,
Malikowski, Angeli, & East, 1998; Bonk & Sugar, 1998) have compared the
results of synchronous and asynchronous computer conferencing. Their
studies demonstrated that delayed and real-time case collaboration foster
completely different social interaction and dialogue pattern. They discovered
that while delayed conferencing led to greater depth of discussion and peer
responsiveness than real-time conferencing, in both conference formats, a few
off-task behaviors and interpersonal comments were indicators of increasing
group inter-subjectivity and peer scaffolding.
Findings on computer conferencing in teacher education tell of possibilities
to support pre-service teachers' affective and emotional states to teach instead
of higher conceptualizations or theory-based re¯ections. The participants
consider computer conferences an ineffective means for the exchange of
instructional methods or theory-based explanations (McIntyre & Tlusty, 1995;
Merseth, 1991). Hiltz (1994) concluded that while both students and instructors report superior learning opportunities and outcomes, one of the clear
messages in the research is that improved outcomes are contingent upon
faculty efforts and skill in teaching on-line. The question arises how to
structure the whole learning environment and the interaction between individuals in a way that it supports the progressive knowledge construction and
high-quality conversation.
THE QUALITY OF SOCIAL INTERACTION AND RECIPROCAL
UNDERSTANDING IN ASYNCRONOUS DISCUSSION
For people to communicate effectively, they must solve the mutual knowledge problem (Graumann, 1995; Krauss & Fussell, 1990). According to
WEB-BASED CASES IN TEACHING AND LEARNING
5
researchers in the ®eld of socio-linguistics, the mutual knowledge problem
derives from the assumption that to be understood, speakers must formulate their contributions with an awareness of their addressees' knowledge
bases. That is, they must develop some idea of what their communication
partners know and do not know in order to formulate what they have to
say to them. According to Nystrand (1986), reciprocity involves mutually
shared knowledge or knowledge that two or more individuals possess in
common. Research on collaborative learning also calls for reciprocity in
social interaction. It seems evident that people acquire knowledge and
patterns of reasoning from one another but for some kinds of shared
knowledge, individually rooted processes play a central role. As Resnick,
Levine and Teasley (1991) put it, human cognition is so sensitive to social
and cultural context that we must ®nd good and elaborated mechanisms by
which people actively shape each other's knowledge and reasoning processes.
There is evidence that the teaching±learning process is a complex social
situation containing multiple actors, each interacting with his or her
own intentions and interpretations (Pintrich, Marx, & Boyle, 1993). For
example, studies on learning interaction report dif®culties in reaching
reciprocal understandings even in traditional face-to-face teaching-learning
situations (Winne & Marx, 1982). In asynchronous communication, the
participants need to establish what is mutually known in order that messages
can be formulated, and the meaning of messages constructed. One could
expect the establishment of common ground to be particularly problematic
when two or more groups of individuals, who come from different contexts
and countries and who have not previously worked together, are electronically brought together to work on a common task. It certainly is, but
still the electronic collaboration may reveal that actually they have their
own `mini-culture' with mutually known body of information (Graumann,
1995). For example, in the present study the students mutually know
that they are able to use web-based conferencing tools, e-mails, etc., and
they have the same educational aims and experiences from ®eld teacher
training. To reinforce this shared awareness base, we also created certain
pedagogical solutions aimed at increasing mutuality between the students.
We provided students with joint theory-based readings, and set up videoconferences for students' synchronous interaction. Students also created their
personal pro®les for a web-based conferencing environment to introduce
themselves.
6
È RVELA
È AND P. HA
È KKINEN
S. JA
SOCIAL INTERACTION AND A THEORY OF
PERSPECTIVE TAKING
Based on Piaget's (1963) cognitive developmental theory, Selman (1980)
suggested that educators need to devise new ways for students to progress
beyond their egocentric views of the world, that is to say to grow interpersonally. Selman's developmental construct of social cognition, perspective
taking, is the ability to see the world from another person's perspective or infer
another's capabilities, attributions, expectations, feelings and potential reactions. Based on Piaget's cognitive developmental theory, Selman (1980) has
outlined a social cognitive developmental model of ®ve distinct stages with
increasing abilities to take into account alternative viewpoints.
Perspective-taking skills are critical to successful human functioning and
involvement in everyday social interaction. We suppose that global networked
technologies can in¯uence student perspective taking and raise interpersonal
understanding. We also assume that if web-based interaction is aimed at
educationally valuable higher-level discussion among the students, the level of
perspective taking will correspond to the improved quality of discussion. As
the grade of perspective taking in electronic asynchronous discussion
improves, the interaction and learning among the students advances. We
also believe that the coordination of different perspectives and mutual
negotiation produces reasoning in a more general level (Schwartz, 1995).
In our study, Selman's (1980) developmental theory of social cognitive
skills offered a theoretical basis to develop a tool for exploring the level of
electronic discussion. Selman and coworkers have studied the ontogenesis of
interpersonal conceptions as a function of developmental levels of social
perspective taking. They have de®ned it as the ontogenetic process by which a
child comes to understand the way psychological points of view between self
and the other are coordinated (Gurucharri & Selman, 1982; Selman, Beardslee, Schultz, Krupa, & Podorefsky, 1986). As a result of his studies, ®ve
developmental levels of the coordination of social perspectives is de®ned:
Stage 0: Undifferentiated and Egocentric; Stage 1: Differentiated and Subjective Role-taking; Stage 2: Self-Re¯ective / Second Person and Reciprocal
Perspective; Stage 3: Third-Person and Mutual Perspective Taking; and Stage
4: In-depth and Societal±Symbolic Perspective Taking.
Descriptions of concepts at each level are divided into sections on persons
and relations. The former concept describes a person's notions of how an
individual functions psychologically and the individual's understanding of
WEB-BASED CASES IN TEACHING AND LEARNING
7
internal complexity. The latter concept describes the closely related notions of
how these individual perspectives are related and how viewpoints are mutually
understood and coordinated (Selman, 1980). In other words, in his structural
description of categories, Selman describes each level with two different
conceptions: the style conceptions of persons and conceptions of relations.
AIMS
This study aims to examine (1) What kind of communication will occur
between students within asynchronous web-based conferencing?, (2) What
level of discussion patterns will occur within web-based conferencing? and (3)
What is the level of perspective taking between the interactors? With these
questions we intend to contribute a perspective on the possible contextual and
pedagogical features affecting the quality of web-based interaction and
increase its educational value.
SUBJECTS
The subjects of the study are pre-service teachers in the United States (Nˆ40)
and Finland (Nˆ30). Finnish students came from two different universities:
20 students from the University of Oulu and 10 students from the University of
JyvaÈskylaÈ. For all these students, the participation in web-based conferencing
course is credited as part of their compulsory studies in education. All the
students had experiences with ®eld training, studies in educational psychology, and basic knowledge about computers and Internet. This Web-based
project lasted for 2 months.
PROCEDURE
Task
In this project, the students constructed case-based descriptions in the areas
such as motivation, multicultural education and technology in education as
well as the change these practices impose on the traditional teaching and
learning practices. Each case could have been either a success story or a
description of a problematic teaching scenario based on ®eldwork observa-
8
È RVELA
È AND P. HA
È KKINEN
S. JA
tions of `theory in action'. For example, students were asked to describe a
teacher and / or student(s) in a problematic or instructionally interesting situation observed in the ®eld; leaving all the names and places of the situation
anonymous. Different levels of expertise in peer and mentor collaboration were
provided during the learning process in order to apprentice student learning.
Mentoring was organized by senior students from other countries as well as by
in-service teachers and faculty members from other universities.
Tools
Electronic case mentoring can be used to foster insights about the global or
local nature of educational problems as well as the diversity and complexity of
these educational dilemmas (Bonk, Hansen, Grabner, Lazar, & Mirabelli,
1998). An asynchronous web-based tool called Conferencing on the Web
(COW) was applied for the learning environment. COW was chosen because it
is easily available. COW is a shareware program, which allows users to read,
browse and add to multiple discussions asynchronously by using a web
browser anywhere in the world at any time. In web-based conferences students
could discuss teaching and learning issues related to particular subjects,
problems, ideas and observations. COW is organized into three different
levels: conference level, topic level and conversation level. The data analysis
of this study focus on one particular conference (Finland Cases) designed for
case descriptions of Finnish students, on which all the students from Finland
and US could comment. The topics of Finland Cases, under which conversations by any Finnish student could be initiated, can be seen in Appendix 2. In
order to strengthen the feeling of a virtual community, the web work was
supported by two international videoconferences between the two Finnish
sites and the American counterpart. In these conferences, the process of
creating cases was discussed (Saarenkunnas et al., 1999).
PROCEDURE
The web-based learning project proceeded in the following way:
(1) The students read a selection of articles in the areas of learning and
teaching.
(2) ISDN Videoconference-meeting of Finland±USA was organized for
introducing the students.
WEB-BASED CASES IN TEACHING AND LEARNING
9
(3) The students created cases in COW. They were asked to produce
collaboratively or alone 2±3 short cases on problems they had encountered
in schools. They were also instructed to comment on the cases written by
the fellow students. Each case created an electronic discussion.
(4) Different levels of mentoring (peer, experienced teacher, researcher, local
and global) were provided.
(5) The students summarized the discussions and the web work was closed.
(6) Final videoconference-meeting of Finland±USA was organized and the
process of creating cases was re¯ected.
METHOD
Data Collection
A combination of quantitative and qualitative research methods was
employed. Quantitative data included: (1) computer-generated usage of
statistics that illuminate the nature, time and volume of participation (the
amount of messages, replays, frequencies, etc.), as well as the distribution of
discussions among the users; (2) survey data on subjects' background
information; (3) various interviews during the process and; (4) transcript
data of students' postings. This paper reports on data set 1 and 4.
Data Analysis
Preliminary Analysis of Each Discussion: The Type of Postings
During the 2 months period, the students produced 25 different discussions
involving 10±30 postings in each discussion. First, the category of the type of
postings was searched. The types of postings were grouped into the following
categories: Theory, New point / Question, Experience, Suggestion, and Comment. The categories were formulated from transcript data by the researchers.
Second, cross-references between the student postings within discussions, and
mentors' postings were marked. Third, quanti®cations were made such as, the
number of postings by mentors, the number of each type of posting, and the
number of cross-references.
Analysis of the Communication: The Level of Discussions
Graphs were drawn, which demonstrate the progress of a discussion,
dynamics of different type of postings, mentors' role, and cross-referring in
each of 25 discussions. The graphs were researchers' analytic tools which
10
È RVELA
È AND P. HA
È KKINEN
S. JA
facilitated to formulate three groups of 25 discussions: higher-level discussions,
progressive discussions and lower-level discussions (different levels of discussions are described in a more detailed way in the `Results'). Two researchers made
independent estimates of the levels of discussions. Their classi®cations matched
perfectly with 90% of codings. The 10% of contradictory analyses (3 discussions)
were negotiated until unitary estimation was reached.
Speci®c Analysis of a Quality of Communication: A Stage of Perspective
Taking in Discussions
The particular attempt was to ®nd out what stage of perspective taking occurs
among the students in asynchronous discussion. The aim was also to examine
the possibilities and constraints for either high or low level of discussion. We
adopted Selman's perspective-taking categories when developing a coding
category for the postings by the students. (For more speci®c description on a
system of categories adopted on the present study, see Appendix 1.) We
thought that Selman's theoretical model on conceptions of relations offers a
useful tool to analyze the quality of asynchronous discussion on a higher-level
than merely focusing on linguistic structures or forms of discussion, since we
did not have simultaneous access on students' thoughts (Howell-Richardson
& Mellar, 1996). Selman's theory is strongly tied to children's development.
In our study we did not focus on the development of individual students;
rather, the focus was on the development of discussion created by them in
asynchronous discussion. It must be noticed that we were not measuring
students' social cognitive skills or its development during networked interaction, nor did we pay attention to their developmental level of perspectivetaking skills. Again, two researchers made independent estimates for coding
and this time, classi®cation matched perfectly in 80% of coding. The 20% of
contradictory analyses were discussed until unitary estimation was reached.
RESULTS
Overall Description of Quanti®cations
The total amount of discussions under the conference `Finland Cases' was 25.
The 25 discussions included altogether 342 postings, the average number of
postings per discussion being 14. The proportion of postings by mentors was
22% (76) within the whole conference. Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of
posting types among different levels of discussion. The number of theory-
WEB-BASED CASES IN TEACHING AND LEARNING
11
Fig. 1. The distribution of postings between different levels of discussion.
based postings was 9%, new points / questions 20%, experience-based postings 20%, suggestions 6% and comments 45%.
Level of Discussion
In the analysis of the level of discussions, 25 discussions were divided into
three main groups: higher-level discussions (24%), progressive discussions
(40%) and lower-level discussions (36%). This is illustrated in (Fig 2). Six
discussions were found which belong to the higher-level discussions and can
be characterized as theory-based discussions with mutual negotiations. The
discussions maintained in high-level postings, such as theory-based postings
and postings involving new point or question. Comments did not degrade the
Fig. 2. Distribution of discussions according to different levels.
12
È RVELA
È AND P. HA
È KKINEN
S. JA
quality of discussion, but supported the construction of a topic to be discussed.
Rich cross-referring was also typical for these conversations.
The second group involved progressive discussions with some crossreferences and reciprocity as also generalizations and joint `knowledge-building'. These 10 discussions involved plenty of comments, as well as experiencebased postings and postings with new points or questions. It seems typical that
in the course of the discussions, the students' postings were constructed on the
previous, mainly experience-based postings, but at the end of the discussion,
general thoughts and ideas were rise. However, no theory-based discussion
occurred. Another typical feature for the discussions was the rich dynamics in
conversation: cross-references and variety in types of postings.
Nine discussions in the third group were mainly comment-based lowerlevel discussions not indicating progressive discussion but rather separated
comments and opinions. Students' comments did not take into consideration
the earlier discussion, but rather represented each student's independent and
often unilateral comment. The amount of other type of postings than comments was minor.
Quality of Communication
Three different levels of discussions were found in the qualitative analysis.
Because we were interested in the quality of discussions in terms of their
educational value, more speci®c analysis was conducted based on social
cognitive theory of perspective taking (Appendix 1). Each of the three levels,
higher-level, progressive level and lower-level conversations were analyzed in
detail in order to understand reciprocal understanding and perspective taking
stage of each level of conversation. We wanted to better understand the
characteristics of each discussion level, whether perspective taking is observable in electronic communication, and what is the possible contribution of
electronic communication to the quality of discussion?
From all 25 discussions (Appendix 3), none of the discussions reached the
highest stage 4 (Societal±Symbolic Perspective Taking). Five discussions
(20%) were in stage 3 (Mutual Perspective Taking), nine discussions (36%) in
stage 2 (Reciprocal Perspective Taking), nine discussions (36%) in stage 1
(Subjective Role-taking), and two (8%) discussions in stage 0 (Egocentric,
Fig. 3). Higher-level discussions were either in stage 3 or in stage 2. In these
discussions, Mutual or Reciprocal Perspective taking were apparent. Students
recognized the value of other students' opinions and considered the topic of
discussion from a variety of different viewpoints. The communication
WEB-BASED CASES IN TEACHING AND LEARNING
13
Fig. 3. Distribution of discussions between categories of perspective taking.
progressed from mutual understanding to more general argumentation and
conclusions. Excerpt 1 describes Mutual Perspective taking (Stage 3) in
asynchronous discussion. We use Excerpt 1 also to demonstrate the COW
discussion. Because of space limits, only the most illustrative parts of the
discussion have been chosen to demonstrate the level of perspective taking.
EXCERPT 1. of discussion 216 / 1 ``Non-native ESL teachers abandon
their mother culture?!?!''.
1. Case-author: Hanna (Finnish student) Date: Feb. 20 8:31 AM 1998
. . . Scollon and Scollon claim in their book `Intercultural Communication: A
Discourse Approach' that non-native ESL teachers have neglected the
linguistic and cultural aspects of their MOTHER CULTURE. ..WHAT DO
YOU THINK?
2. Author: Annu (Finnish student) Date: Feb. 20 8:56 AM 1998
This is an interesting question and I think it ties with who or what has the
ownership to what kind of `knowledge' . . . I have often wondered that being,
for example, a non-native ESL teacher is one of the most tedious jobs one
could think of: You're not an expert in English because you are not the native
speaker of the language; neither are you the expert in your native language
because you don't have a formal degree which would justify you being an
expert. So it's like standing on no-man's land.
14
È RVELA
È AND P. HA
È KKINEN
S. JA
3. Author: Tim (US mentor, researcher) Date: Feb. 23 8:07 AM 1998
That is an interesting idea Annu; one is a king or queen in neither land. So,
should we try to have an expertise that everyone wants and respects, or try
to get multiple forms of knowledge or general skills for which you really
will be worth more, but paid and respected less? Hmm . . . I think from a
societal standpoint, having some knowledge about many topics is more
important since we have too many experts and specialists already. In a global
community like COW, we need more well-rounded people like all of you
perhaps.
4. Author: Mari (Finnish mentor, experienced teacher) Date:
Feb. 23 10:46 AM 1998
I am about to make a bold claim which you can freely disagree with. I ®nd the
concept of `native-speaker of English' pretty problematic. Native of which
culture? The English-speaking world is really wide and in a sense we, the
foreign-language speakers, can claim a membership to the club of `natives'. . .
The concept ot culture is a problem when we talk about teaching English. EFL
teachers, more or less unanimously, agree that teaching `culture' should be a
part of every language-learning programme. If we think of English, what
should these `cultural studies' include?. . .
5. Author: Hanna (case author, Finnish student ) Date:
Feb. 24 8:40 AM 1998
Mari (and others), I am glad that you made your `bold claim'. I think that my
own cultural awareness about the Finnish culture became more important to
me after I had studied English for some time. I agree with Annu about the
tedious task of standing on both sides of the fence, if you get my meaning. And
I also think that I have gone through a phase which might be called `The-grassis-not-always-greener-on-the-other-side', meaning that I have found out that
no one culture is really that superior to the others, and I believe that to an EFL
teacher this is a healthy attitude. . .
6. Author: Mari (Finnish mentor, experienced teacher) Date:
Feb. 25 3:18 AM 1998
Hanna (and others), I fully agree. A couple of questions I think we ought to
think about in here, or things that I would like to discuss: What would this
cultural awareness that ESL teachers need be like? What would our teacher
studies at the university be like if we took English as it is, a world language?
WEB-BASED CASES IN TEACHING AND LEARNING
15
The quality of communication in progressive discussions was mainly in Stage
two (except one Stage 3 and two Stage 1 discussions). The discussions were
characterized with reciprocal perspectives, so that, especially, thoughts and
feelings were considered from variety of viewpoints contributing to the
progressive quality of discussion. Like ``I agree with Anne's comment that
you can not motivate anyone. I have been to many leadership workshops, and
from them I have learned that . . .''. However, in these discussions general
conclusions, evaluation or suggestions were rare.
Lower±level discussions were all in Stage 1, but two discussions in Stage 0.
The discussions were restricted on subjective perspectives so that students
either produced very egocentric, usually feeling-based opinions or responded
to earlier postings with ``I agree. . .''- like postings without paying attention to
the point that the other students may or may have interpreted the same
situation or experience differently. In these discussions, the postings remain
very scattered and actually there was no progressive discussion at all.
DISCUSSION
The results of this study point out different levels of web-based discussions.
Three levels were found: higher-level discussions, progressive discussions
and lower-level discussions. More speci®c analysis of the quality of each
level conversation focused on perspective-taking in communication. Since
perspective-taking skills are critical to successful human functioning and
involvement in everyday social interaction, we supposed that global networks
can give an impact on student perspective taking and raise interpersonal
understanding. The results show that the stage of perspective taking in
electronic communication was generally rather low. None of the discussions
reached the highest stage, societal±symbolic perspective taking, but most of
the discussions indicated mutual or reciprocal perspective taking or even
subjective role-taking. However, typical was that higher-level discussions
involved communication with highest stage perspective taking and constructive discussion, while lower-level discussions were mostly egocentric and
super®cial. Thus, the results support our hypothesis that high-level perspective
taking was in relation to higher-level discussion.
In the present study, we applied Selman's socio-cognitive theory on
perspective taking for creating a system of categories on analyzing the quality
of web-based discussions. The theory gave us a useful framework to explore
16
È RVELA
È AND P. HA
È KKINEN
S. JA
possible cognitive growth or developing perspectives on web-based learning.
This theoretical `tool' was important because our data did not allow us to
consider students' thought processes or social interaction processes where two
or more students negotiate meaning during web-based learning (Reed et al.,
1998). Ackermann (1996) describes cognitive growth as an equally important
process of `diving in' and `stepping out' to reach higher understanding.
Individual cognitive growth and developing perspectives presume that persons
describe experiences to themselves and others and in doing so make it more
tangible and precise. According to Ackermann (1996) and Piaget and Inhelder
(1967), people cannot learn from their experience as long as they are entirely
immersed in it. They need to step back, and from a distance reconsider what
has happened to them. They must take the role an external observer, or critic,
and must revisit their experiences as if it were not theirs. For this, case-based
conferencing on a web is a relevant environment because students can reach
many different perspectives to a single case that they have constructed.
Internet-based activities in which students ultimately develop relationships
with students from other cultures should have some in¯uence on the learners'
sense of the world (Sugar & Bonk, 1995).
IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Since our data pointed out the relation of the perspective-taking stage with the
level of discussion, the results prompt us to consider the contextual and
pedagogical features of web-based learning environments. In future, our aim
is to examine the strategies people employ in an effort to establish common
ground in situations where students are collaboratively working with webbased environments: How do virtual social groups emerge as a result of webbased communication? What is the quality of collaboration and how collaboration is formed? Are there certain pedagogical factors that contribute on
the development of different levels of discussions? What are the possible
contextual and pedagogical contributors for high-quality conversations? Why
do other conversations remain in lower level? How can perspective taking be
enhanced in web-based conferencing?
In order to support higher learning, the pedagogical models for web-based
interaction should be based on a solid base of learning theory. The tool alone
neither supports nor hinders high-level interaction; it is the users of these
environments and the pedagogical models applied who make the difference.
WEB-BASED CASES IN TEACHING AND LEARNING
17
Because of the limited amount of data we cannot ®nd exact explanations for
different levels of conversations. In this study, we declined analyzing the data
at the individual student level; so information about student abilities and
background information is not available. Instead, we sought to emphasize
certain pedagogical and contextual features of the learning environment,
which may have contributed students on sharing meaning.
CONCLUSIONS
Firstly, the mentors did not have externally distinctive roles in web-based
conversation. The mentors represented expertise in different ®elds and
apprenticed students into many contexts and perspectives. The mentors
applied their rich experience spontaneously, added theory-based comments
more in narrative than instructive form. Also, in the process of constructing
joint cases and shared knowledge in a networked environment, the mentors'
responses cover only a small fraction of a whole interaction. Most problemsolving and interaction is done in student interactions (Kuure, Saarenkunnas
& Taalas, 1999). Secondly, traditional views of conversational coherence
describe the immediate sequencing and referencing of ideas and topics
(Scheggloff, 1991). Because of the way asynchronous computer conversations
are implemented, the learners do not answer immediately. Participants are
able to wait to answer until they have composed what they wish to say.
This study points out that theory-based readings can give an impetus to
constructive conversation, because students can support their experiences with
theory-based argumentation. Thirdly, the interaction process is not inherently
situated in a web-based environment, nor is knowledge construction derived
exclusively from writings or notes on a web. This study shows that different
contextual resources, such as readings or videoconferences, and pedagogical solutions, such as peer / group or mentors' contributions are important
to create shared understanding. Web-based learning should not be considered only in global networks, but should also be seen in a broader social
context.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The study is supported (in part) by grants from the Finnish Academy.
18
È RVELA
È AND P. HA
È KKINEN
S. JA
REFERENCES
Admiraal, W.F., Lockhorst, D., Wubbels, T., Korthagen, F.A.J, & Veen, W. (1998). ComputerMediated communication in teacher education: Computer conferencing and the
supervision of student teachers. Journal of Learning Environment Research, 1, 59±74.
Ackermann, E. (1996). Perspective-taking and object construction. Two keys to learning. In Y.
Kafai, & M. Resnick (Eds.), Constructivism in practice (pp. 25±35). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Barron, B.J.S., Schwartz, D.L., Vye, N.J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., Brandsford, J., &
The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1998). Doing with understanding:
Lessons from research on problem-based learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences,
7 (3 & 4), 271±311.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves. An inquiry into the nature and
implications of expertise. Chicago, IL: Open Court.
Bonk, C.J., Hansen, E.J., Grabner, M.M., Lazar, S., & Mirabelli, C. (1998). Time to `Connect':
Synchronous and asynchronous case-based dialogue among preservice teachers. In C.J.
Bonk, & K.S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for
literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 289±314). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bonk, C.J., & King, K.S. (Eds.). (1998). Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bonk, C.J., Malikowski, S., Angeli, C., & East, J. (1998). Web-based case conferencing for
preservice teacher education: Electronic discourse from the ®eld. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 19.
Bonk, C.J., & Sugar, W.A. (1998). Student role play in the World Forum: Analyses of an arctic
learning apprenticeship. Interactive Learning Environments, 1, 1±29.
Brown, A.L., & Campione, J.C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative
learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In L., Schauhe, & R.,
Glaser, (Eds.), Innovations in Learning. New environments for education, (pp. 288±325).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Edelson, D.C., Pea, R.D., & Gomez, L. (1996). Constructivism in the collaboratory. In
B.G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 151 ± 164). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology
Publications.
Graumann, C.F. (1995). Commonality, mutuality, reciprocity: A conceptual introduction. In I.
Markova, C. Graumann, & K. Foppa (Eds.), Mutualities in dialogue (pp. 1±24). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Gurucharri, C., & Selman, R.L. (1982). The development of interpersonal understanding during
childhood, preadolescence, and adolescense: A longitudinal follow-up study. Child
Develoment, 53, 924±927.
Hakkarainen, K., Lipponen, L., & JaÈrvelaÈ, S. (1999). Epistemology of inquiry and computersupported collaborative learning. A cross-cultural comparison. In T. Koschmann, & N.
Miyake (Eds.), New Perspectives on Computer-supported Collaborative Learning. (in
press).
Harasim, L.M. (1993). Global Networks. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hiltz, S.R. (1994). The virtual classroom: Learning without limits via computer networks.
Human±Computer Interaction Series. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
WEB-BASED CASES IN TEACHING AND LEARNING
19
Howell- Richardson, C., & Mellar, H. (1996). A methodology for the analysis of patterns of
participation within computer mediated communication courses. Instructional Science,
24, 47±69.
JaÈrvelaÈ, S., Niemivirta, M., & Hakkarainen, K. (1999). The interaction of students' self-reported motivation and strategies and situational motivation and action during a computer
supported collaborative learning project. (submitted).
Khan, B.H. (Ed.). (1997). Web-based instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T.W. (1984). Social psychological impacts of computermediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123±1134.
Koschmann, T.D. (1994). Toward a theory of computer support for collaborative learning.
Journal of Learning Sciences, 3, 219±225.
Krauss, R.M., & Fussell, S.R. (1990). Mutual knowledge and communicative effectiveness. In
J. Galegher, R.E. Kraut, & C. Egido (Eds.), Intellectual teamwork (pp. 111±145).
Hillsdale, N.J., Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kuure, L., Saarenkunnas, M., & Taalas, P. (1999). Mentoring in networked learning environments. (submitted).
McIntyre, D.J., & Tlusty, R.H. (1995). Computer-mediated discourse: Electronic dialogue
journaling and re¯ective practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association. San Francisco, CA.
Merseth, K. (1991). Supporting beginning teachers with computer networks. Journal of Teacher
Education, 42, 140±147.
Nystrand, M. (1986). The structure of written communication: Studies of reciprocity between
writers and readers. London: Academic Press.
Piaget, J. (1963). The child's conception of the world. Paterson, NJ: Little®eld, Adams.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1967). The coordination of perspectives. In The child's conception of
space (pp. 209±246). New York: Norton & Company.
Pintrich, P.R., Marx R.W., & Boyle R.A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of
motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual
change. Review of Educational Research, 63, 167±199.
Reed, J.H., Schallert, D.L., Benton, R.E., Dodson, M.M., Lissi, M., & Amador, N. (1998).
Methodological issues in studying computer mediated conversation. Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, April, San
Diego.
Resnick, L.B., Levine, J.M., & Teasley, S.D. (Eds.). (1991). Perspectives on socially shared
cognition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Riel, M. (1993). Global education through learning circles. In L.M. Harasim (Eds.), Global
networks: Computers and international communication (pp. 221±236). Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Saarenkunnas, M., JaÈrvelaÈ, S., HaÈkkinen, P., Kuure, L., Taalas, P., & Kunelius, E. (1999).
NINTER ± Networked interaction: Theory-based cases in teaching and learning.
(submitted).
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1993). Computer-support for knowledge building
communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 265±283.
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Lamon, M. (1994). The CSILE project: Trying to bring the
classroom into world 3. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive
theory and classroom practice (pp. 201±228). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20
È RVELA
È AND P. HA
È KKINEN
S. JA
Scheggloff, E. (1991). Conversation analysis and socially shared cognition. In L.B. Resnick,
J.M. Levine, & S.D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 150±
171). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Schwartz, D.L. (1995). The Emergence of Abstract Representations in Dyad Problem Solving.
The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 321±354.
Selman, R.L. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding. New York: Academic Press.
Selman, R.L., Beardslee, W., Schultz, L.H., Krupa, M., & Podorefsky, D. (1986). Assessing
adolescent interpersonal negotiation strategies: Toward the integration of structural and
functional model. Developmental Psychnology, 22, 450±459.
Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in
organizational communication. Management Science, 32, 1492±1512.
Winne, P.H., & Marx, R.W. (1982). Students' and teachers' views of thinking processes for
classroom learning. The Elementary School Journal, 82, 493±518.
WEB-BASED CASES IN TEACHING AND LEARNING
21
APPENDIX 1
A system of categories developed from the theoretical ideas of Selman
(1980) for analyzing the depth of discussing in a synchronous electronic
discussion.
Stage 0: Egocentric. Students present very subjective and egocentric opinions
and expressions. They do not pay attention to the point that the other student
may or may not have interpreted the same situation or experience differently.
Conceptions of relations of perspectives are very limited. Because most of the
students present their own egocentric opinions and experiences, the electronic
conversation does not progress, but the postings remain very scattered.
Stage 1: Subjective Role-taking. The subjective perspectives and other student
perspectives are clearly differentiated. Students opinions, experiences and feelings are unitary. The discussion is constructed of one-way conception of relating to
perspectives. Students respond to postings of conversation with like postings.
Stage 2: Reciprocal Perspective Taking. Students recognize and value the
uniqueness of each person's opinions and expressions in conversation. A twoway reciprocity of thoughts and feelings, not merely actions, is typical in
discussions. Students consider the case of an electronic conversation from a
variety of viewpoints and conversation progress, but still different perspectives are not taken into account enough.
Stage 3: Mutual Perspective Taking. Students coordinate the perspectives of
self and others and thus the topic in conversation is seen from the perspective
of a third person or generalized. Each one has his / her own experience about
the topic under discussion. Relations are viewed as ongoing systems in which
thoughts and experiences are mutually shared. The electronic conversation
progresses from mutual experiences (`my points') to more elaborative
argumentation and develops to discussions about more general points, in
education or society, for example.
Stage 4: Societal±Symbolic Perspective. The students conceptualize subjective perspectives of persons toward each other at existing not only on the plane
of common expectations of awareness, but also simultaneously at multidimensional or higher level of communication. In conversation, they can
abstract multiple mutual perspectives to a societal, conventional, legal or
moral perspective in which all the individuals can share.
22
È RVELA
È AND P. HA
È KKINEN
S. JA
APPENDIX 3
COW Finland Cases
Topics
Number
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
210
212
214
216
219
220
Topic Name
Alternative Teaching Methodologies
Assessment and Evaluation
Big Global Problems
Classroom Management and Discipline
Co-operative Learning
Foreign Language Teaching and Learning
Culture in the Classroom
Intercultural Communication
Learner-Centered Instruction and Constructivism
Local Problems
Motivation
Multicultural Education ± Ethnic Minorities
My Own Topics (use as a last resort)
Teaching Methods
Technology (Computers and Learning)
Number of
conversations
2
2
1
6
1
3
1
0
2
1
2
1
1
2
4